TB3-06806

TB3-06806

Claimants failed to establish nexus to a Convention ground and did not rebut the presumption of effective state protection with clear and convincing evidence because Colombia maintains functioning institutions, has demonstrated law enforcement and conviction of perpetrators (including the rapist), offers protection programs, and the claimants did not pursue available domestic remedies or protection programs; therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.96 and s.97(1) of IRPA.

Citation
TB3-06806
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Claimant (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant (daughter): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 and 97(1)) / Hearing and Decision by RPD
Outcome
Claims rejected
Legal Topics
State Protection, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Convention Refugee Definition, Risk of Persecution, Section 96, Section 97(1)
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Nexus to Convention Grounds Convention Refugee Definition Risk of Persecution Section 96 +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Claimant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant (daughter)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 and 97(1)) / Hearing and Decision by RPD

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether the claimants' fear is linked to a Convention ground (nexus)
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection is available in Colombia

Ratio Decidendi

Claimants failed to establish nexus to a Convention ground and did not rebut the presumption of effective state protection with clear and convincing evidence because Colombia maintains functioning institutions, has demonstrated law enforcement and conviction of perpetrators (including the rapist), offers protection programs, and the claimants did not pursue available domestic remedies or protection programs; therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.96 and s.97(1) of IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected

Orders

  • Claimants' refugee protection claims are rejected